Inside Prevention

Johnson & Johnson to remove formaldehyde from products (New York Times, 8/16/2012)

Our announcement yesterday that Johnson & Johnson has committed to removing chemicals of concern, including formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane, triclosan and certain phthalates and parabens, was reported by the New York Times today.

The Breast Cancer Fund's Lisa Archer, who leads the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, told the Times that we will continue to push global giants in the cosmetics industry to make safer products:

Johnson & Johnson, which makes a range of personal care products like baby shampoo, acne cream and antiwrinkle lotion, announced plans Wednesday to remove a host of potentially harmful chemicals, like formaldehyde, from its line of consumer products by the end of 2015, becoming the first major consumer products company to make such a widespread commitment....

“There’s a very lively public discussion going on about the safety of ingredients in personal care products,” said Susan Nettesheim, vice president for product stewardship and toxicology for the company’s consumer health brands....

Lisa Archer, director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, said her group would continue to press other cosmetics and consumer-goods companies to follow Johnson & Johnson, including the Estée Lauder Companies, Procter & Gamble, Avon and L’Oreal. (Read complete article.)

J&J removing harsh chemicals from products by 2015 (Associated Press, 8/15/2012)

In a monumental victory for the Breast Cancer Fund and our partners in the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, today Johnson & Johnson announced that it will remove toxic chemicals linked to cancer and other health problems from its cosmetics for kids and adults, across all J&J-owned brands, worldwide.

The company plans to reformulate its baby products by 2013 and its adult products by 2015. Previously J&J had committed to making baby products safer, but not adult products.

Breast Cancer Fund staff member Lisa Archer, who leads the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, spoke with the Associated Press about the victory:

The health care giant late last year pledged to remove "chemicals of concern" from its baby products sold around the world. That change came after a large coalition of health and environmental groups began pressing J&J more than three years ago to make its personal care products safer.

"This is a good step in the right direction," said Lisa Archer, the campaign's national director. "In terms of the cosmetic giants, Johnson & Johnson is going the furthest of any of them in removing chemicals of concern."

By 2015 Johnson & Johnson will phase out [probable human carcinogens 1,4 dioxane and formaldehyde] and others of concern, including triclosan, phthalates and parabens, as well as fragrance ingredients, which aren't disclosed on product labels. However, it will allow chemicals that release formaldehyde when no safe alternative will work and is reducing levels of 1,4 dioxane to below 10 parts per million. (Read complete article.)

We're thrilled with this victory and all that it means for the health of children, women and men worldwide. For more about J&J's specific commitments and the history of our work to convince the company to reformulate, visit safecosmetics.org.

Marin breast cancer linked to vitamin D receptor? (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/8/2012)

California's Marin County, north of San Francisco, has some of the country's highest breast cancer rates. New research explores a vitamin D connection. Though not conclusive, this pilot study points to the need to look beyond traditional risk factors like diet, exercise and family history.

A small pilot study of Marin County women determined through testing to be at high risk for breast cancer found them to be almost twice as likely to have a variant of a vitamin D receptor as the overall population of 338 in the study.

Jeanne Rizzo, president of the Breast Cancer Fund, an advocacy group that focuses on the environmental causes of breast cancer, said it's too soon to stock up on vitamin D.

"But this tells us we should be looking at things that are not just traditional risk factors and it's important to continue this investigation," said Rizzo. (Read complete article.)

Fracking and health: Our right to know and responsibility to protect

Does fracking cause breast cancer? Circulating in the news this week is debate about the impact of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on breast cancer rates.

Though a conclusive link to breast cancer has yet to be established, we do know a few important facts about fracking and our health:

1. Through fracking, we are pumping enormous quantities of water with unknown mixtures of chemicals—some of them known carcinogens—into fracking wells (1).
2. Most of that water-and-chemical mix comes back out of the wells and has to be stored and disposed of safely.
3. Natural gas and other volatile emissions (again, some of which are known carcinogens) from the wells and other equipment and vehicles used in the process cause local air pollution.

The potential exposure of local communities to unknown toxic chemical cocktails through potential contamination of underground water sources, spills from waste storage facilities, unsafe disposal practices and local air pollution illustrates our ongoing failure to consider and protect public health when implementing this new energy extraction technology.

We share the concern of scientists, advocates and the communities that are struggling to understand what fracking means for local health in the absence of vital information.

In order to identify potential health impacts, we need full disclosure on exactly which chemicals are being pumped into fracking wells, and data on which of them are showing up in the air and water in surrounding communities. We need extensive monitoring of fracking sites before and after fracking takes place, and we need to closely examine possible health and ecological impacts.

Moreover, we need this disclosure and monitoring to be consistent across the whole country—not a patchwork of state-by-state legislation that is poorly coordinated and enforced (see the recent NRDC report to find out more (2)). At the very least, we need federal legislation requiring full disclosure of the chemicals used to frack wells, ongoing monitoring of exposures, and a focus on protecting the health of both workers and local residents.

1. "Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing." U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Minority Staff Report, April 2011. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf. Accessed August 2012.
2. "State Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Rules and Enforcement: A Comparison." Natural Resources Defense Council, July 2012. http://www.nrdc.org/energy/fracking-disclosure.asp. Accessed August 2012.